Talk:Comparison of wiki hosting services/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Mediation

There is no consensus. MichaelQSchmidt, Ikip, VGG, and I see no problem with keeping the primary-source references in the article. Others disagree. Shreevatsa (see diff [1]) said this in an edit summary: "there is only one link in 'External links' section, and the rest of the external links are references". It was concerning Shreevatsa's removal of the {{external links}} template from the top of the article.

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. This probably needs to go to Formal mediation. See also: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Guide to filing a case. I think we have already done everything else on the WP:DR list up to formal mediation. In the meantime the primary-source references should stay up as they have for years. Otherwise the chart can't be updated.

This is about common sense. Ask yourself this: How does a computer-related list in chart form with feature and option columns stay updated? The primary-source references next to the wiki farm names in the top chart are for verifying and updating the features and options listed in the columns of both charts.

We could remove the primary-source references next to the wikilinked entries. People can go to the individual articles to find the primary-source references. This is common practice. But the rest of the chart entries will still need the primary source links on the chart page, and accessible, in order to update and verify the chart info. This chart is linked from many wikimedia project pages since we tell people (at Village Pump pages for example) to go to it if they want to do things they can't do on Wikimedia projects. So the chart needs help from other readers to stay more updated. See meta:Category:Proposed projects and meta:Proposals for new projects. Very few of these projects ever get done. So we tell them to check out Comparison of wiki farms. See the rest of this talk page for vast detailed discussion of rules, guidelines, exceptions, etc..

Quote of interest (emphasis added):

  • "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."

-- Ralph Waldo Emerson [2] [3]

We all know the contradictory guidelines on this. Can't most of us agree to think bigger about this, and try to follow ALL the rules including the one about common sense EXCEPTIONS to rules? We can leave the primary-source references in, and remove them gradually as we create more wikipedia articles for the entries. That will take time since that also requires expanded WP:RS scope for article referencing from the media that is internet-based. That effort is good, too. Wiki farms are based on free software, and as part of that open-source area, it requires diligent and difficult sourcing at times. See: Wikipedia:WikiProject Software/Free Software. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

"Otherwise the chart can't be updated." It can be updated just fine. We don't even need to remove the non-notable entries, but removing them would make updating even easier.
"This is about common sense." Given the objections to all this, including the the completely nonsensical justifications for the list like, "Do you bow only to Microsoft?", I'd say that common sense is in short supply here.
"See the rest of this talk page for vast detailed discussion of rules, guidelines, exceptions, etc.. " Unfortunately, these discussion are extremely one-sided: support of multple policies and guidelines vs WP:IAR. --Ronz (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Your inaccurate summations of previous discussions serve what purpose? How exactly can the chart be updated without going to the source to find out what the current features and options are? In fact; how can most computer-related list charts with features and options be updated? For example; Comparison of raster graphics editors. People go to the primary sources. Either directly linked from the list page, or indirectly from the wikilinked article page for an entry. On the separate wikipedia page for an entry one finds the primary source link. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
If we didn't have non-notable entries, there would be no problem whatsoever. --Ronz (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Even if there were non-notable entries, the Alexa links provide the urls. --Ronz (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
If we remove the Alexa links, which some have suggested, then I'm hopeful that we can find other ways of maintaining this article without violating multiple policies and guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Why make people go through the Alexa links? And please stop changing my comments. See WP:TALK. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
You asked a question. I've offered multiple answers. --Ronz (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I asked a new question. Please answer it. Why make people go through the Alexa links? And since you want to delete those too, I go back to my original questions about how to update and verify the features and options in the charts. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Side discussion. Multiple issues

"Your inaccurate summations of previous discussions serve what purpose? " See WP:NPA and WP:CON. Please follow them. Otherwise your comments here could be considered disruption. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
It is informative that a question causes you to invoke Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thanks for reading this. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
This has been explained at length on your talk page. Since you won't discuss it there though, I'm asking you to explain what specific "inaccurate summations" exist in a new section to show these comments were somehow made in good faith. In the meantime, please stop with your disruption of this talk page and personal attacks. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
You have been repeatedly asked not to comment on my talk page. See WP:TALK#User talk pages and WP:Wikihounding. I believe you made an inaccurate summation. People can decide for themselves if that is true or not by going back and reading the talk page. They don't need me to hold their hand. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't care how many times you've asked me to not comment on that talk page when my comments there are completely appropriate. You don't own your talk page. More importantly, it's no justification for your personal attacks. --Ronz (talk) 19:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
It is considered common courtesy and common sense not to comment on another user's talk page when requested. Repeatedly saying that the statements of others are personal attacks is itself considered to be a personal attack when the basis is so questionable. See WP:NPA. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry for this discussion. Obviously, it's just given Timeshifter further incentive to disrupt this page, while demonstrating his bad faith assumptions and inability to follow WP:NPA, WP:CON, WP:TALK, and "common courtesy". --Ronz (talk) 23:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Laying on all the accusations can also be considered a personal attack. See WP:NPA. All this over pointing out my opinion that your summary was inaccurate, and questioning what purpose it served. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Please be careful when reverting

I have a request for the anonymous and registered editors who have been adding or removing all the primary-source reference links. Please incorporate intermediate edits rather than just doing blind reverts. I have made the same mistake at times.

For example; a couple Alexa updates keep getting reversed. Also, an alphabetization correction for the location of one of the entries in the chart. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Please learn to follow WP:AGF. My reverts certainly weren't blind, and I made reference to why they were not. Specifically, I wrote in my edit summary, "see discussion about Alexa info also" in reference to Talk:Comparison_of_wiki_farms#Alexa_references where I wrote, "each should include the access date". Without an access date, the Alexa information is misleading. If we're even going to take the Alexa information seriously, then it needs to have an access date for each entry, and the Alexa information needs to be updated on some regular schedule so that all the information is in synch. Given that no one responded to my concerns about the Alexa information not having an access date, I'm doubting that anyone is actually taking it seriously. My solution then is to remove it all as unmaintainable and of dubious reliability. --Ronz (talk) 23:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Sure, make up the rules as you go along. Par for the course. I made a simple request to not put back older inaccurate Alexa info when doing reverts. I did not assume bad faith. Another baseless attack on your part. Several people besides me have added some updated Alexa info. Try respecting their work. Feel free to add access dates for each entry. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the Alexa information: "My solution then is to remove it all as unmaintainable and of dubious reliability." Sorry for having to repeat myself, but you seem to have failed to see the gist of this discussion. --Ronz (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Another inaccurate summation of what I said. By the way, I started this talk section. The gist of this discussion is the Alexa info. Your actions and statements indicate that you wish to ignore the efforts of others in maintaining the Alexa info. You feel no need to keep the intermediate edits that updated the Alexa info. You did not ask others for their opinions before ignoring those intermediate edits. Then you pointed to an old discussion to justify your actions. You pointed to an old discussion that covered many topics, and because no one replied to that particular point you made an incorrect assumption. As I said, feel free to add access dates for each Alexa entry. Please do not assume that I disagree with that idea. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Updates to Wikia entry

Wikia has changed its wiki creation policy, so this passage can be removed: "Creation of a wiki is subject to approval; must have a large potential audience and be likely to attract enough editors. Projects which overlap existing Wikia or Wikimedia are not accepted." It might be worth saying that a previously restrictive policy has been changed to allow instant wiki creation, or it might not be necessary at all. The sentence about Scratchpad ("There is also a "Scratchpad" wiki subdivided into categories, which welcomes all content.") is still true but not as relevant now that full wikis can be created easily. Thanks for updating this! — Catherine\talk 04:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed the 3 sentences you mentioned. Feel free to update anything else. I don't see any COI problems with feature updating. The only COI problems I see would be if staff at a wiki farm tried to delete a competing wiki farm from the list. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed Alexa column

I've gone ahead and removed the column. The numbers in that column are not verifiable. I see no solution to this. Even if we got all the rankings on a single day and identified this access date, we still have no solution for updating or adding entries.

Previous discussions: Talk:Comparison_of_wiki_farms#Wiki_Spot_Alexa_rating_incorrect, Talk:Comparison_of_wiki_farms#Alexa_references, Talk:Comparison_of_wiki_farms#Alexa_references_and_URL_column, and Talk:Comparison_of_wiki_farms#Remove_Alexa_references_completely.3F, --Ronz (talk) 19:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The Alexa traffic ratings have been updated by several people in the last few months. See the history. I reverted your removal of the column. You had no consensus to remove the column.
I also updated a few Alexa numbers myself and added "as of June 4, 2009." Feel free to add the access date to more Alexa numbers. It was your idea. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
"You had no consensus to remove the column." I don't need consensus to remove the column. The column is unmaintainable. Propose a way to maintain it and perhaps we can keep it as something somewhat useful. --Ronz (talk) 22:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Zzz, I'm bored of this back and forth thing you guys have going on. Can we come to some form of conclusion. Here's my take on the subject: the Alexa column doesn't belong. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Obviously, several people disagree with you. See the article history. Several people have updated the Alexa traffic ratings in the chart in the last few months. It is time you two actually contributed to improving the article rather than trying to delete it. Try adding some dates to the Alexa ratings instead of trying to delete them. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

"The numbers in that column are not verifiable." No one is disagreeing with this, let alone offering a solution. If it's not verifiable, it doesn't belong. --Ronz (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Several people have updated Alexa traffic rankings in the last few months. Maybe you ought to pay attention more to the editing of the article. The edit (see diff) 37 minutes before your first non-discussed removal of the Alexa column was by someone who updated 12 Alexa traffic rankings. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't see how that addresses my concerns. --Ronz (talk) 03:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Please see my previous replies. I am sorry that you don't seem to notice the continual verification and updates of the Alexa traffic ranking numbers by various editors. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I see no objection in the previous replies. --Ronz (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Please see the previous discussions where many people have objected to your removal of the the primary sources and the Alexa sources. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I see no objections. Specifically, I'm looking for arguments either based upon existing policies and guidelines, or providing a compelling reason to ignore those in violation. Please quote from any that I missed so I can find them. --Ronz (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) There are no policies or guidelines against including Alexa traffic rankings in an article, list, or chart. There are many Wikipedia pages with them. See the section farther down, #Adding dates to Alexa traffic rankings, for further info and examples. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:V states, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." --Ronz (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Primary sources for Alexa traffic rank column

Here is the last version of the article that contains the Alexa column:
All the Alexa traffic rankings are verified with inline citations directly to the source of the Alexa traffic rankings. They are primary sources.
Since it is not a political opinion, nor an interpretation, a primary source is acceptable. See: WP:PRIMARY. It is Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. From that section:
"a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge."
Also: "Primary sources are sources very close to an event. For example, an account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident. Other examples include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; original philosophical works; religious scripture; published notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations written by the person(s) who conducted or observed the experiments; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs. The key point about a primary source is that it offers an insider's view to an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on."
Note the part about "tabulated results of surveys." The Alexa number is a tabulation, and "a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" can see that the sourcing for it comes directly from Alexa. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
There is further discussion about Alexa primary sourcing in the talk section below titled #Mediation time. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm at a complete loss as what this has to do with anything, let alone the previous discussions and the verification problems. --Ronz (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Well if you don't understand then maybe you should ask the other people who support having the Alexa traffic rank column before deleting it again. As I wrote elsewhere there are many Wikipedia pages with Alexa traffic rankings. See the results of this search of Wikipedia articles. There is also an infobox with Alexa rank as one of the parameters: Template:Infobox Website. That infobox is on many pages. See Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox Website. They all use primary sourcing for the Alexa rank they show. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Please explain how this relates, especially in light of WP:V. If this somehow is supposed to support the Alexa column, then I'm at a loss as to see how or why. --Ronz (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
No one else has stated any problem understanding primary sourcing as a method of verification. Whether they agree with having an Alexa traffic ranks column is another matter. Your initial point in this talk section was: "The numbers in that column are not verifiable."
They are easily verifiable. Just look at the ones I updated today. Again, as I wrote elsewhere: We, along with other articles that have Alexa ranks, have been using primary sourcing for Alexa traffic ranking.
I see now. You aren't addressing any of my concerns in any way whatsoever. Alexa information isn't verifiable because it is always changing - there is no way to check past information. That's just the WP:V concern. Then there's the issue of whether or not it is a reliable source... --Ronz (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Your initial statement at the top of this talk section on removing the Alexa column was: "I've gone ahead and removed the column. The numbers in that column are not verifiable. I see no solution to this. Even if we got all the rankings on a single day and identified this access date, we still have no solution for updating or adding entries."

All of your points have been addressed. Sometimes several times. Now you say "Alexa information isn't verifiable because it is always changing - there is no way to check past information." You can check it the day it is updated. I already mentioned that. Alexa traffic rank numbers are used on many pages. As I said previously, many of those pages give the date of retrieval of the Alexa numbers. The editors of those pages can check the info the day it is verified.

On Wikipedia pages there is lots of info from reliable sources that is not immediately accessible. Info not found online. Info found only in print form in obscure locations and libraries. There are casualty numbers that are updated, and can only be verified the day they come out because the number keeps increasing, and some reliable casualty number sources don't keep all past totals. They may keep only the current total, or yearly totals, but not the monthly or quarterly totals. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Alexa traffic rankings as inclusion criteria

The Alexa traffic rankings have become defacto inclusion criteria for this chart. Removing them removes the inclusion criteria.

People have deleted attempted entries into the chart because they were for wiki farms that had lower traffic rankings than anything already in the chart.

Others obviously think the Alexa rankings are important. The edit (see diff) 37 minutes before the first non-discussed Ronz removal of the Alexa column was by someone who updated 12 Alexa traffic rankings. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced of that. A website isn't inherently notable for how much traffic it gets; per WP:WEB, a site must either "be the subject of multiple non-trivial published works", have "won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization", or "distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators." Shouldn't we be following Wikipedia's rules here? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I actually just thought of a comparison. IMO, using Alexa rankings as inclusion criteria for this list is like using MySpace viewings as a criteria for the inclusion of a band article. It'd be like saying, "But my band got 2 million viewings - and therefore we deserve an article!" — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Entries on lists don't have to be notable. Same as for facts in articles. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Facts in articles don't have to be notable? I'm not sure that's true; facts need to be verifiable, and that means a reliable source. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 18:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I see from your user contributions that you do little additive editing of articles. If you did, then maybe you might understand better the difference between notability and sourcing. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Let's not start in with personal attacks, thanks. Recently I've been dealing with more administrative stuff, but that's no concern of yours. There isn't a de facto inclusion criteria here; the results of the RFC were pretty split down the middle, if leaning towards a more strict interpretation. I just looked at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lead and selection criteria, and it says "Each entry on a list should have its own non-redirect article in English Wikipedia, but this is not required if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future." (The link to WP:V was in the original text.) Each entry in the list needs to be verifiable through a reliable source, and the burden of proving that is based on the person who added the entry to the article. As I understand it, then, you're saying that we should ignore that rule and invent our own form of verifiability for this article. Or am I misunderstanding?
Either way, I think we're dealing with two different issues here. Right now we're discussing what sort of inclusion criteria we should be using. But your edit battle with Ronz is about the addition of a column. Notice that Ronz hasn't also removed all non-verifiable entries when he's removed the column; he's only done the latter. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) Claiming personal attacks can be considered a personal attack. See WP:NPA.

I repeat, entries in a list do not have to be notable. Notability applies to the topic of an article, not the facts or entries in an article.

There are no inclusion criteria for this particular list. The only inclusion criteria is the defacto one of the Alexa traffic rankings. But that was not agreed to. Some editors took it upon themselves to use the Alexa rankings as justification for blocking/removing some entries on the list.

The editors of some lists agree to make notability of all entries a requirement. That was never agreed to for this list.

The Alexa traffic rankings are additional info that many people have found useful for this list. Ronz had no consensus to remove that Alexa info.

There is nothing unverified in the article. Sourcing for features comes from the wiki farm websites. Sourcing for Alexa traffic rankings comes from Alexa. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine, whatever. I really don't want to keep going back and forth with you on this, so I'll just leave you and Ronz to battle it out. Do what you like, I'm done here. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 00:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Side note - I just noticed that over at the Village pump in this edit, you described Ronz and I as "single purpose accounts." With each of us having more than 12,000 edits and being active on many, many different pages, don't you think that claim is a little unfair? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 00:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Not really. You both do almost nothing additive for Wikipedia. You both concentrate on removing stuff. That is not a personal attack. It is an observation. I suggest you try adding more stuff. That is a friendly suggestion. I have had many discussions at WT:EL (Wikipedia talk:External links), and I know that eventually even single-purpose-account, fulltime spamfighters can come to reasonable agreements with "outsiders" after looonnnngggg discussion. But the groupthink at WT:EL is not a good thing, and the solution is for people there to do more additive stuff in order to understand ALL the Wikipedia guidelines, and not just mainly the guidelines having to do with removing stuff. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Please take your personal attacks somewhere else. --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Claiming a personal attack can be considered a personal attack at times. Please see WP:NPA. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comparison_of_wiki_hosting_services/Archive_6&oldid=492468492"